28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Morris Schæffer]

Arnold as emotionless killing machine > Rote subplot where he becomes a father-figure to a troubled teen

This totally works. Ya Know why? Robert Patrick as emotionless killing machine.

[Irish]

T1 >T2

100% agree

[Skitch]

100% agree

You are fake news!

[baby doll]

I enjoy both. T2 is just so damn big in scope.

I'm not sure what you mean by "scope," since in terms of plot, Terminator 2 is as much a remake as a sequel. The fundamental difference as I see it is that the original had a certain unity of action, whereas the sequel--due to its huge budget and the shift in Arnold's screen person over the intervening seven years (see Kindergarten Cop)--needs to offer a range of appeals to different sectors of the audience in order to be profitable, and the various elements don't completely hold together. The plot becomes a loose pretext for a series of free-standing attractions: sensational action sequences, the father-son bonding stuff ("heart"), and woman-in-the-nuthouse melodrama (something for the ladies). Of Cameron's later films, Titanic is probably the most successful at integrating its diverse appeals, whereas True Lies pushes the tendency toward profitable incoherence to its limit, to the point that the movie seems to be channel-surfing between two unrelated plots.

[Dukefrukem]

the shift in Arnold's screen person over the intervening seven years (see Kindergarten Cop)--needs to offer a range of appeals to different sectors of the audience in order to be profitable, and the various elements don't completely hold together. The plot becomes a loose pretext for a series of free-standing attractions: sensational action sequences, the father-son bonding stuff ("heart"), and woman-in-the-nuthouse melodrama (something for the ladies).

Do you honestly believe Cameron wrote these scenes so the movie would be more "profitable"?

[Skitch]

I'm not sure what you mean by "scope," since in terms of plot, Terminator 2 is as much a remake as a sequel. The fundamental difference as I see it is that the original had a certain unity of action, whereas the sequel--due to its huge budget and the shift in Arnold's screen person over the intervening seven years (see Kindergarten Cop)--needs to offer a range of appeals to different sectors of the audience in order to be profitable, and the various elements don't completely hold together. The plot becomes a loose pretext for a series of free-standing attractions: sensational action sequences, the father-son bonding stuff ("heart"), and woman-in-the-nuthouse melodrama (something for the ladies). Of Cameron's later films, Titanic is probably the most successful at integrating its diverse appeals, whereas True Lies pushes the tendency toward profitable incoherence to its limit, to the point that the movie seems to be channel-surfing between two unrelated plots.

Man you are all over the place with your specifics and your vagaries. Sorry bd, you've presented so many topics and logic leaps I'd have to spend paragraphs to respond, so I'll just refrain.

I thought T2 added a lot the mythology of the world built in T1, and because of the budget Cameron was able to go bonkers with the action scenes in ways he couldn't before. That's it.

[megladon8]

Don't get me wrong, I love both. And as a kid I fell in love with the sheer scope and technical prowess. Of 2.

But 1 is better.

[baby doll]

Do you honestly believe Cameron wrote these scenes so the movie would be more "profitable"?

I believe Cameron is a rational agent and understands that a film with a budget of a hundred million dollars needs to appeal to as wide an audience as possible in order to turn a profit.

[Skitch]

I believe Cameron is a rational agent and understands that a film with a budget of a hundred million dollars needs to appeal to as wide an audience as possible in order to turn a profit.

The same Cameron who has stories written about him nearly every movie how hes lost his mind, his movie is way over budget, and is going to be the biggest bomb and sink the studio? I don't think he writes to the audience. He writes to himself.

[Scar]

I thoroughly enjoy True Lies, save for the, ahem, stripper sequence. Even when I first saw it in theaters (several times), I always felt that scene should've just gone away. EDIT: And the uzi rolling down the stairs. That was too much, severe eye roll inducing.

Aside from that, I thoroughly enjoy it. My friends and I quote the 'yeah but they were all bad' line numerous times. Bill Paxton was hilarious, and I enjoyed Tom Arnold in this, and I can't say I'm generally a fan of his.

"The guy is a goddamn used car salesman..."

[Morris Schæffer]

"Is it a snow cone maker? Is it An espresso machine?" A Waterheater?

[baby doll]

The same Cameron who has stories written about him nearly every movie how hes lost his mind, his movie is way over budget, and is going to be the biggest bomb and sink the studio? I don't think he writes to the audience. He writes to himself.

Regardless of what's written about his films before they open, they invariably make money, and I would argue that their lack of narrative unity (which I take to be a defining feature of contemporary blockbuster filmmaking in general) is a major reason for his films' commercial success: Terminator 2 seems to me as much an example of "masala filmmaking" as any Bollywood film. Whether Cameron consciously engineers his films to make them appealing to the widest possible audience or whether he "writes to himself" is not something we can know, although I don't think I'm being overly cynical in suggesting that the former is more probable. In any event, my hypothesis that he deliberately engineers his films to appeal to the widest possible audience provides a plausible explanation for why his films have become less unified as their budgets have gone up, while the notion that he "writes to himself" does not. And let's not forget, Hollywood is a business, after all.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Oh, and Lust, Caution. That's a sex movie. Didn't like it.

[Skitch]

Regardless of what's written about his films before they open, they invariably make money, and I would argue that their lack of narrative unity (which I take to be a defining feature of contemporary blockbuster filmmaking in general) is a major reason for his films' commercial success: Terminator 2 seems to me as much an example of "masala filmmaking" as any Bollywood film. Whether Cameron consciously engineers his films to make them appealing to the widest possible audience or whether he "writes to himself" is not something we can know, although I don't think I'm being overly cynical in suggesting that the former is more probable. In any event, my hypothesis that he deliberately engineers his films to appeal to the widest possible audience provides a plausible explanation for why his films have become less unified as their budgets have gone up, while the notion that he "writes to himself" does not. And let's not forget, Hollywood is a business, after all.

It is. And he has a blank check. His latest crazy idea is 5 back-to-back sequels about the blue cats that every single person is saying "Who wants this? This will be a bust." James Cameron wants this.

[Grouchy]

Oh, and Lust, Caution. That's a sex movie. Didn't like it.

I remember loving this one on theaters.

[Ezee E]

True Lies is the type of ridiculous action movie that I look for rather than something like Batman & Robin because it's both preposterous and still works at the same time. Batman & Robin just gets boring after a while, and there's really nothing to admire in it from an action perspective.

With that, I think Terminator 2 is probably the best action movie around. There's just so many different approaches to action and spectacle that it never really gets boring, which is where he failed in Avatar.

[Skitch]

With that, I think Terminator 2 is probably the best action movie around. There's just so many different approaches to action and spectacle that it never really gets boring, which is where he failed in Avatar.

My skin absolutely crawls every single time that helicopter flies under the overpass.

[baby doll]

It is. And he has a blank check. His latest crazy idea is 5 back-to-back sequels about the blue cats that every single person is saying "Who wants this? This will be a bust." James Cameron wants this.

The claim that certain Hollywood directors (Cameron, Eastwood, Nolan, Scorsese, Tarantino, et al.) have a "blank check" to do whatever they want always strikes me as overstated and ignores the very real aesthetic, ideological, and commercial constraints these filmmakers tacitly accept. As David Bordwell, Janet Staiger, and Kristin Thompson have demonstrated in detail, Hollywood has a particular concept of what a well-made film looks and sounds like, and the filmmakers I just listed can all be counted on to deliver professional-looking, saleable films. Even with all his clout, Cameron is not going to make films like Evolution of a Filipino Family, which is eleven and a half hours long, was shot on 16mm film and early 2000s digital video, and lacks a finished sound mix; indeed, he probably doesn't even see it as an option, much less a desirable one. Moreover, because Cameron gets a cut of the gross (which is one of the perks of being a commercially successful filmmaker), there's a strong economic incentive for him to make films that do business in foreign markets, especially China. Regarding the four Avatar sequels, clearly his investors want these films for the same reason there are six Terminator movies and a TV spin-off: A franchise has greater earning potential than any single film.

[DFA1979]

I rather like James Cameron's work in a narrow Hollywood sense. He has a lot of style and flash but not too much substance. I would label him as what Michael Bay should aspire to be yet fails to achieve due to being lazy and a propaganda machine for the US military.

[transmogrifier]

Oh, and Lust, Caution. That's a sex movie. Didn't like it.

I liked that very much.

[transmogrifier]

I rather like James Cameron's work in a narrow Hollywood sense. He has a lot of style and flash but not too much substance. I would label him as what Michael Bay should aspire to be yet fails to achieve due to being lazy and a propaganda machine for the US military.

Pretty much. Cameron has a good action sense and a shitty story sense.

[DFA1979]

Pretty much. Cameron has a good action sense and a shitty story sense.

I realized that after Avatar. Which I still liked.

[Grouchy]

The claim that certain Hollywood directors (Cameron, Eastwood, Nolan, Scorsese, Tarantino, et al.) have a "blank check" to do whatever they want always strikes me as overstated and ignores the very real aesthetic, ideological, and commercial constraints these filmmakers tacitly accept.

Scorsese has been pretty vocal recently about not having such blank checks.

[Philip J. Fry]

I might be in the minority here, but I believe Cameron should just hire a writer and focus at what he really excels at: directing the shit out of things and moving forward visual effects.

[Skitch]

None of the filmmakers listed have made 2 of the 3 highest grossing films of all time.